3 comments Roundup of Crazy Hall of Fame Voting From Baseball Hall of Fame Voters

I guess I shouldn't call it "crazy" since everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just be consistent and don't have a stupid opinion, that's all that I ask. I usually do a few posts about Hall of Fame voting and may end up doing a few more before it's all said and done, but felt the need to try my best to condense the crazy voting into as few posts as possible. I will probably fail in doing so. As always, Jon Heyman will probably deserve his very own post. He seems like a nice guy in real life, but his ballot is always very vexing to me. He's a shill for Scott Boras and tends to use bad reasoning for his Hall of Fame selections.

So I will start first with Dan Shaughnessy's Hall of Fame ballot. Dan is the type of Hall of Fame voter who won't vote for players accused or suspected (by him) of using PED's. If I'm going to be nice, I will say it is refreshing that at least he just states he won't vote for these players because he thinks they used PED's rather than pussy foot around the matter as if there is some new information he's waiting to see revealed. It's interesting who he thinks the steroid taint (giggles) has touched and who it hasn't.

Wednesday my ballot will be mailed with boxes checked next to the names of Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell.

Six votes. I think it’s a personal high.

A personal high for me would be if Dan Shaughnessy didn't get the opportunity to troll his readers anymore.

This means I am not voting for (among others on the ballot), Craig Biggio, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, Lee Smith, Carlos Delgado, and Nomar Garciaparra. Oh, and I also am not voting for Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Gary Sheffield, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell.

I'm going to try and keep my blood pressure down about Bagwell being thrown in with Clemens, Sosa, Bonds and McGwire. Let's just say I think that's extremely uncalled for and overly-presumptive.

Yikes. Imagine going into a seven-game series with a roster of the guys I’m not voting for: Piazza behind the plate. An infield of McGwire, Biggio, Nomar, and Bagwell. An outfield of Bonds, Sosa, and Sheffield. Edgar at DH. Clemens on the mound. Lee Smith in the bullpen. Mussina ready to pitch Game 2. Who wouldn’t take their chances with that team against any team?

It's almost like these are some of the best players in the history of baseball and if there were an honor these players should receive for being the best players in baseball then they could perhaps receive that honor.

So let it rip. Bring on the hate. Bring on the humiliation. Bring on the blogboy outrage. Bring on the analytic arrogance. Bring on the PED Hall Pass. It’s a tradition like no other.

Dan needs to be hated. It allows him to get pageviews by writing columns that troll his readers and further irritate them. Hey, it beats actually taking the time to write a good column.

So don’t expect Pedro to be unanimous. His win total of 219 (accompanied by a mere 100 losses) will put off some voters, but Pedro (three Cy Young awards) should come in well north of 90 percent. Johnson is a 300-game winner (always Hall-worthy, unless you cheated),

How does Dan know that Randy Johnson didn't cheat? Because he was skinny? He was also 6'10". Writers love to talk about hitters who still hit well later in their careers being PED users, how about Johnson having 300+ strikeouts each season from the age of 35-38? That's 1999-2002, right in the middle of the Steroid Era. He has 290 strikeouts at the age of 40, but in 2003 he started to struggle a little bit more and his strikeouts per 9 innings dipped, as did his ERA rise. If Randy Johnson were Mike Piazza then the steroid stigma would be all over him, but he was skinny, so he definitely didn't use steroids. Right? Even though his career decline was at the same time baseball started testing for steroids. Of course, his decline could also be due to his age, but if that's not good enough reasoning for Mike Piazza's decline then why is it good enough to explain Randy Johnson's decline?

Biggio missed by only two votes last year. He has 3,000 hits, four gold gloves, and almost 300 homers. I would put him in the Hall of Very Good (only one 200-hit season),

Raines was a rare combination of power (170 homers) and speed (808 steals). He had six 100-run seasons. Trammell is going to be off the ballot soon, and won’t make the Hall with the BBWAA, but there’s lots of value in a shortstop who hit .300 seven times, won four Gold Gloves, and should have been MVP (he lost to George Bell) in 1987. 

Where's the Hall of Very Good for them? Raines had zero 200-hit seasons and Trammell had one 200-hit seasons.

Raines and Trammell are problematic and I am guilty of inconsistency with their candidacies.

You don't say? This is another problem with the Hall of Fame voting, the inconsistency of the voters. Trammell and Raines get Dan's vote because they've been on the ballot a long time, while Biggio is held to the multiple 200-hit seasons standard that Raines or Trammell can't meet either. 

The Roids Boys are the greatest burden on voters. Some voters don’t care. Some cherry-pick the cheaters. Some turn away from anything that even looks dirty. Withholding votes for guys who cheated and guys who look like they cheated is unfortunate, sometimes unfair, and almost impossible to impose consistently.

It's not really impossible to impose consistently if you choose to impose it consistently. Is there proof that a player used PED's? If so, choose not to vote for them. If there is no proof, but only suspicion because the player looks like he used steroids, then vote for that player to enter the Hall of Fame. It can be imposed consistently.

The thinking becomes, “This was the era. They were all doing it.’’ Or, “Bonds and Clemens were already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.’’

Well, they WERE already Hall of Famers before they started cheating.

Sorry, I am not there. No votes for guys caught using. And worse — no votes for guys who just don’t look right. Bagwell and Piazza are the two players most penalized for this arbitrary crime. By any statistical measurement, Bagwell and Piazza are first-ballot Hall of Famers, yet their vote totals (62 percent for Piazza last year, 54 percent for Bagwell) remain considerably lower than their résumés merit. 

Just like I won't give a person credit for committing a crime and then confessing to it, I won't give Dan credit for being arbitrary in punishing Bagwell and Piazza. At least he can admit he's being arbitrary though. A lot of writers bullshit around Bagwell and Piazza (as you will see), rather than just say "I'm being the moral police and have no real reason for doing so."

Happily, none of the bad stuff ever touched Pedro.

Wait, what? None of that bad stuff ever touched Pedro? If Jeff Bagwell is guilty by association or by how he looked, then please keep in mind Pedro played on teams with Nomar Garciaparra, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeremy Giambi, and Paul Lo Duca. Every player who played in the Steroid Era is touched by steroids in some fashion. It's impossible to say this bad stuff never touched Pedro, because it's not true. He had plenty of teammates who were in the Mitchell Report or were suspended for using steroids. Of course it's just accepted by Dan that Pedro didn't use steroids, while "the bad stuff" is all over Jeff Bagwell because he was a big guy and hit for power. Pedro would have possibly played with Bagwell too if the Red Sox hadn't traded him to the Astros. "The bad stuff" touched nearly every player during the Steroid Era. Don't act like Pedro was immune.

Speaking of Pedro Martinez, Paul Hoynes wants us to know why he didn't vote for Pedro Martinez to enter the Hall of Fame. Don't worry, he thinks Pedro deserves it. It's just Paul couldn't be bothered to actually submit a Hall of Fame ballot this year. He forgot. Hey, shit happens. Sure, it's an honor to be able to vote for the Hall of Fame and many sportswriters would considered it be an achievement to have this honor, but what good is the privilege if you don't abuse it?

I didn't vote for this year's Hall of Fame class that will be enshrined in Cooperstown in July 26. It's the first time I've missed since I became eligible to vote in 1994.

I forgot to pay the mortgage this month and now I'm living on the street (not really). What's your punishment for abusing the privilege of being able to vote for the Hall of Fame? Nothing? Great, carry on.

Somehow, someway the ballot never got from my mailbox to my eager fingers. Between the curb and my desk, the ballot took a powder. By the time I realized it was really lost, there wasn't time to get a new one.

My bad. I didn't mean to indicate the privilege was abused. The privilege was just lost. That's so much better. Maybe I'm old school, but if I had a Hall of Fame ballot mailed to me then I would probably keep it in a safe place to where it wouldn't get lost. Of course I give a shit about the Hall of Fame and would consider it a privilege to vote, so maybe I'm out of line for believing this.

Well before the ballots were released, I was wrestling with the idea of voting for Pedro Martinez. As great a pitcher as he was, I thought he was punk on the mound.

I feel like every year Hall of Fame voters compete amongst themselves to come up with the most arbitrary reason to not vote for a player. Pedro was a "punk." You know who else was a punk at times? Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Nolan Ryan, Juan Marichal and I'm bored of typing now.

In Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS between the Yankees and Red Sox, Martinez threw behind Karim Garcia's head and hit him high in the back in the fourth inning. The players yelled at each other with Garcia eventually gaining revenge on a hard, spikes-up slide at second base.

Which, to be clear, was not a punk move and was simply retribution. I'm sure that's how Hoynes sees it.

In the bottom of the inning, Roger Clemens of the Yankees retaliated by throwing a pitch high in the strike zone to Manny Ramirez. The pitch wasn't as menacing as Martinez's, but Ramirez screamed at Clemens and the teams sprinted onto the field.
The late Don Zimmer, New York's bench coach, came out of the dugout and charged Martinez, standing a good distance from the melee. Martinez yanked Zimmer, 72 at the time, to the ground.

Juan Marichal bashed John Roseboro's head in with a baseball bat and he is in the Hall of Fame. Let's gain some perspective here. Baseball brawls happen.

Since we're having a come to Jesus moment here, I have to say those weren't the only reasons Martinez irritated me. He quite simply dominated the Indians. He was 11-1 with a 1.77 ERA in 16 games against some of the best lineups the Indians have ever fielded.

And that was just the regular season.

A Hall of Fame voter has to be devoid of emotion like this. It's just part of the deal. If a voter can't divorce his emotional feelings from a player from the player's performance through his career then that voter shouldn't have a Hall of Fame vote.

Was Martinez a great pitcher, yes. Would I have voted for him if I had taken proper care of my ballot, yes. Here's why.

He's one of the greatest pitchers in MLB history? 
 
In 2009, 10 years after Martinez eliminated the Indians in that postseason game, he was on his last legs. It was spring training and teams were trying to coax him into pitching one more year. I asked Mark Shapiro, Indians general manager at the time, if he was interested in signing Martinez.
Shapiro said that if he could sign Martinez to a one-year deal, he'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, Shapiro watched Martinez beat the Indians year after year just like I did. He'd seen Martinez's whole act.
But when he looked at him, he saw talent. I saw a punk.

So Hoynes would have voted for Pedro because he saw Pedro as a punk. I'm just glad he would have voted for him, had he remembered where he put his ballot of course.
Emotion had gotten in my way. It's hard to see clearly like that.

Yes, it is. Now if Paul Hoynes could just prevent forgetfulness from getting in the way of him actually submitting his Hall of Fame ballot.

Jeff Schultz of the AJC gives his yearly breakdown of his Hall of Fame ballot. 

I’ve been pretty consistent in my voting philosophy when it comes to the Hall of Fame. I won’t vote for players who used performance enhancing drugs, at least not before there’s some admission of guilt and clarity how it may have affected their numbers.

In the case of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, Schultz wants them to admit to guilt for the use of PED's that they may not have even taken. Just admit that which you may not have done and Jeff Schultz will honor you with his Hall of Fame vote. If you can't make it all the way up to the pedestal to kneel before Schultz, he'll give you a hand so you can make it up there and hold yourself accountable for something you may not have done.

The Hall of Fame voting process has come under significant scrutiny in recent years, and for good reason. For the last few years, I’ve considered giving up my vote and may still do so if clearer guidelines are not given. 

Here's the thing though. What kind of "clearer guidelines" does there need to be? Does the BBWAA need to tell these Hall of Fame voters who to vote for? Isn't the purpose of having 538 voters that each one has their own criteria and opinion on which players should be inducted and which should not? The BBWAA isn't going to come out and say, "You can't vote for players suspected of using PED's." They can say they will have a PED wing and there will STILL be Hall of Fame voters who will grandstand and state they won't contribute a vote to a player entering this wing.

Those are the eight players I voted for: I consider all of them to have Hall of Fame credentials there also is no reason to believe they used performance enhancing drugs. The players: John Smoltz (first ballot), Randy Johnson (first pitcher), Pedro Martinez (first ballot). Craig Biggio, Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Alan Trammell.

Fair enough. It seems Schultz has a pretty good idea for the criteria he will use to vote players into the Hall of Fame. His criteria and guidelines aren't consistent with the guidelines other voters use, but if the BBWAA takes away part of the voter's decision-making ability to vote for one player over another then they would be dictating how to vote. Even if the BBWAA attempted to clear up how to vote for PED users, which I wouldn't be against, it still won't unmuddy (not a word) the waters. You think if the BBWAA says they will have a PED wing that Mike Piazza will get Murray Chass's vote? Of course not. If the BBWAA says if a player has used PED's then that player can't be in the Hall of Fame, then don't you think this means Jeff Bagwell will be guilty by association? Of course he will. The guidelines are great, but it's still going to be up to each individual voter to choose to vote for a player or not.

Those with two players with HOF credentials I’m in holding pattern on: Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell. I may vote for them in the future but I’m using the full extent of the 10-year window allotted to a player’s eligibility on that chance more becomes of allegations  of PED use.

There probably won't be other information that involves provable allegations of PED use. Why not wait for every Hall of Famer's 10-year window to almost run out before voting for that player? Maybe Randy Johnson did use PED's, maybe he didn't. Let's wait and see if more evidence comes out one way or another. John Smoltz came back from Tommy John surgery throwing at a high velocity. Better make him wait 8-9 years to see if any allegations come out against him.

I don't know what makes sportswriters like Jeff Schultz the expert when it comes to determining which players used steroids and which didn't. I'm sure he had Jason Grimsley pegged as a PED user from the start of course. This whole "I'm waiting for new information" thing is just an excuse to push a decision into the future with the hopes some allegations will come out that makes his job as a voter easier. It's been five years (well, more than that) since Bagwell and Piazza retired. Judge their career on what you know now and don't arbitrarily pick players to suspect. If waiting for more allegations (or in the case of Bagwell, any allegations) before voting, then that's fine, just hold every player in the Steroid Era to that standard.

These are 19 other players on the ballot. Some are worthy of Hall consideration but didn’t make it onto my ballot this year: Rich Aurilla, Aaron Boone, Tony Clarke, Carlos Delgado, Jermaine Dye, Darin Erstad, Cliff Floyd, Nomar Garciaparra, Brian Giles, Tom Gordon, Eddie Guardado, Jeff Kent, Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Mike Mussina, Troy Percival, Jason Schmidt, Lee Smith, Larry Walker.

But you could have voted for two more players. Why didn't you vote for them if they are worthy of Hall consideration? What is with all this waiting to vote for players? This is how players suddenly start to creep up in percentage every year. It's not like the career numbers for these players changed. It's that Hall of Fame voters don't want to elect too many players in one year, which is absurd. If Edgar Martinez is a Hall of Famer, then he's a Hall of Famer. How many other players in his Hall of Fame class there are should be irrelevant.

When the voice of reason is Bob Klapisch, the same guy who criticized A-Rod for trying to get into playing shape, then you know some part of the system is broken. I do disagree with a few of Klapisch's choices, but think he is reasonable in his explanations for the most part.

Here, then, is how I voted, broken down into three categories: the slam dunks, the gray-area candidates (who I said yes to) and the one who almost fell off my ballot (but didn’t).

Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Mike Mussina, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.

Murray Chass hates this ballot and will probably write a retort on his non-blog.

My feelings about Bagwell are similar to those about Bonds, Clemens and Piazza. The former-Astros slugger finished with a .297 career average and 449 home runs. Those numbers have to be viewed through the prism of the PED era, which delivers us to the doorstep of the third category.

Every player's numbers during the Steroid Era have to be viewed through the prism of the Steroid Era. It's not just Bagwell who should be judged by the Steroid Era. Pitchers used PED's too.
 
THE FINAL CUT: Bonds, Clemens, Piazza.

Last year, wrestling with the first-ever steroids era ballot, I decided I would never vote for a proven cheater. That means a permanent “no” on Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez. The ban applies to Andy Pettitte, too, as much as I like him personally.
 
I still believe that those who used (or use) PEDs gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, whether it’s increased bat-speed or greater raw power or better velocity readings on the radar gun.

Well, this is awkward because Bonds and Clemens are as close to being proven to have used PED's as they could be without admitting it or being caught red-handed.

So why did I vote for Bonds, Clemens, and Piazza? Because, as I stated last year, it’s not my job to investigate or prosecute rule-breakers. Bud Selig took no action against the notorious duo, Bonds and Clemens, which is reason enough for me to stand down, as well. If the federal government couldn’t get a conviction against either one, then the matter is settled.

I don't remember the federal government getting a conviction against Mark McGwire either. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

As for Piazza, I voted for him last year and did so again because there is no proof he used steroids. Don’t ask me to sift through circumstantial evidence like late-career spikes in home run production or back acne. That’s a weak standard to keep someone out of the Hall.

cc: Murray Chass

LEFT IN THE DUST: Schilling, Alan Trammel, Edgar Martinez.

There’s no strong case to be made against Schilling, other than the ballot’s 10-man limit and my insistence that Mussina be included. It was one or the other this year, although I have no doubt Schilling will be elected by 2017 at the latest.

I'd probably vote for Schilling over Mussina personally. Otherwise, it seems that Bob Klapisch has a (fairly easy to understand) standard and that's how he votes. I'm not sure I would put Piazza in the group with Bonds and Clemens and I can't wait for Klapisch to change his mind about Andy Pettitte because Pettitte seemed so damn contrite.

Jerry Green has a reasonable Hall of Fame ballot and wants to remind others (um, Paul Hoynes) that voting for players to enter the Hall of Fame is serious business. Still, there are two things that stand out in this column that don't make sense to me.

It is super serious. I was not being frivolous that day nearly 30 years ago when I left Nelson Fox off my Hall of Fame ballot. I was exercising an opinion — an opinion that I ultimately changed.

It is how we vote — mostly by opinion. We vote, most of the 500-plus of us seasoned baseball writers, by knowledge, by experience, by observation, by conscience, by conversation with others.

Unfortunately, it seems some writers vote based on only their memory and on emotion. Jack Morris had a great game. It made me feel good! He gets my vote!

(looks at Jerry Green)

Our responsibility is to Baseball, the game itself. It is to the players, the best few of those athletes who played the game. But mostly our responsibility is to the fans, those citizens who love sports and who love baseball.

As much as Jerry has vexed me through the years, this is true. The Hall of Fame isn't a shrine or the moral center of the baseball universe. It's a museum for fans of baseball to view the best players who ever played the game.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

I pretty much agree with this list here. It's a pretty good ballot, though I would vote Jeff Bagwell in before Gary Sheffield. Jerry Green voted for suspected and proven PED users it seems. There on his ballot is Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Sheffield, and Barry Bonds.

(checks list again)

It must be a mistake. Let me copy and paste again.

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

For some reason the copy and paste function keeps leaving Barry Bonds' name out.

(counts up the players listed)

There are 10 players here and Jerry Green is voting for PED users, so the all-time home run king should be on the list. Maybe when writing "Gary Sheffield" Jerry Green meant "Barry Bonds." I mean, I love Alan Trammell, but Barry Bonds should be on any voters list before Trammell if that voter isn't concerned about PED use. So here's my question...HOW THE HELL DOES JERRY GREEN NOT VOTE FOR BARRY BONDS?

Here is the best part. There is no explanation given. Jerry Green includes PED users on his Hall of Fame ballot, but doesn't include Barry Bonds. It's unfathomable to me. The words "Barry" or "Bonds" don't even appear in this article. Jerry Green has erased Bonds from existence and I can't figure out why Bonds is different from Clemens and McGwire. 

Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.

I chuckled at this because Hall of Fame voters do love themselves some moralizing.

Smoltz won 213 games, mostly as a starting pitcher, and saved 154 as a reliever for the Braves. Great stats.

Jack Morris had greater stats with 254 victories, mostly for the Tigers. He was a dominant pitcher in his World Series and playoffs starts. He pitched for four World Series winners.

Morris was rejected 15 times by the voters of the BBWAA, some of whom just didn't like him because he was too often abrasive to the media. My opinion. Not frivolous.

So if Jack Morris doesn't make the Hall of Fame then Jerry Green will be damned if John Smoltz is making it. Seems fair.

As happened with Nellie Fox, Jack Morris ultimately must be voted belatedly into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the codgers on the Veterans Committee.

The "codgers" on the Veterans Committee? Jerry Green has been working in the sports industry since 1956. That puts him as being at least 77 years old if he started right out of high school. That's like the Civil War pot calling the War of 1812 kettle "old and rusty."

Bill Madden joins Murray Chass in the great bacne conspiracy surrounding Mike Piazza. This has become a real thing.

On his stats alone —.308, 427 homers, .545 slugging percentage, six 100-RBI seasons, 12-time All-Star, most homers as a catcher (396) — Piazza should have been a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Rob Parker disagrees. (Don't worry, I'M GETTING THERE!)

But even though he never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report (as both Bonds and Clemens did), Piazza has been unable to shake the innuendo of having been a steroids user.

Maybe because sportswriters like Bill Madden keep writing columns about how Mike Piazza is under a cloud because of steroids. It's hard to shake the innuendo when those responsible for the innuendo keep bringing it up.

A big reason may be that Piazza’s career went downhill fast and he began being plagued with the kind of injuries often related to steroids in 2003, the year testing began.

Craig Calcaterra covers the retort to this same argument Bill Madden has made on repeated occasions better than I. Piazza was a catcher and any Hall of Fame voter worth a shit knows that catcher is the most physically demanding position on the baseball field. There is a reason that many catchers like Buster Posey end up having a "When he should move positions to first base?" discussion surrounding them. Piazza's career began to decline at the age of 34. No shit. Welcome to the club. Gary Carter started declining at the same time in his career. It happens to catchers who don't have the luxury of being the DH.

A similar case to Piazza is that of Jeff Bagwell, a singles hitter in the minors (six homers in 859 plate appearances) who bulked up when he got to the majors and went on to hit 449 homers with eight 100-RBI seasons and an MVP Award in 1994.

They are similar cases except Mike Piazza wasn't a singles hitter in the minors. So they are both white, right-handed hitters who are linked to steroids, but other than that, Piazza's minor league career does not mirror Bagwell's minor league career. Piazza hit 64 home runs in 1862 at-bats in the minors.

Bagwell also never failed a drug test or appeared in the Mitchell Report, but nevertheless has been widely suspected of being a steroids user. 

Is Bagwell widely suspected or is this just the case of those with the pulpit to saying "Hey! Bagwell is widely suspected of being a steroids user by people!" being the same ones who are the ones doing the suspecting? Could it be those with the megaphone are the ones yelling the loudest, giving the impression of wide suspicion?

And then there is poor Fred McGriff, a five-time All-Star who never had a hint of steroid association. Had he played in any other era, McGriff, with his overall numbers (.284, 493 homers, 1,550 RBI, .303, 10 HR, 37 RBI, .532 slugging in 50 postseason games) easily would have been elected to the Hall. Instead, with those numbers dwarfed by his cheater contemporaries, Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, McGriff is in danger of falling off the ballot, with just 11.7% support last year.

So McGriff gets the benefit of having no steroid suspicion, but his numbers will also be compared negatively to those who used steroids, even though most Hall of Fame voters think these are tainted numbers. So McGriff would have good enough numbers to make it if he weren't compared to those whose statistics are deemed to be elevated by PED use. Seems fair to hold McGriff to a standard most Hall of Fame voters deem to be artificially achieved while acknowledging McGriff didn't use PED's.

Amid all the controversy over steroids, and the continued presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot, a lot of the Baseball Writers are complaining about being limited to vote for only 10 candidates.

Mostly, however, these are the writers who vote for Bonds and Clemens, two guys who are never getting elected.

So who cares what these people think, right?

But as a result, two straight years of three no-brainers coming on the ballot has served to substantially stifle the vote totals of such candidates as Curt Schilling, Jeff Kent and Mike Mussina in particular, who all can make a legitimate case for the Hall.

Jeff Kent? Eh...not sure.

Like every Hall-of-Fame election, this one does promise to stir raging debates, not to mention plenty of intrigue — none more so than with Piazza, who’s eventually going to get elected, but if it turns out to be this year and makes it an electorate of five, it would be the first time that many go in since the original Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner class in 1936.

Piazza didn't make it, but Bill Madden's bacne article gloating about this with the mention of bacne (of course) deserves it's very own post. I enjoy how Bill Madden writes an article about Mike Piazza's link to steroids while saying there is a lot of talk about Mike Piazza's link to steroids. It's almost like he is helping to create the news he reports on.

Speaking of Mike Piazza, Rob Parker wouldn't vote for Mike Piazza even while not caring about Piazza constantly being linked to steroids. This is just a crazy opinion that really doesn't deserve any real consideration. I will give it consideration anyway.

Here is Parker's ballot. Notice he thinks Lee Smith deserves induction but Mike Piazza does not.

Anyway, so this is what Rob Parker said about Mike Piazza.

PARKER: I just looked at his numbers, I thought they were very good. There's a lot of guys very good. Fred McGriff's not in the Hall of Fame, he's a few home runs away, three home runs away, from 500. He has way more RBIs than Piazza, he's not in the Hall of Fame.

Because if McGriff sticks around another year and takes 200 at-bats to hit three more home runs then all of a sudden he is a Hall of Famer. Incredibly logical line of thought. McGriff has 215 more RBI's than Mike Piazza. That's over 1846 more at-bats by the way. Remember that Rob Parker gets to vote for the Hall of Fame and these aren't things he has considered. He just derps it up and tries to talk about RBI's, while ignoring how many plate appearances it took each player to get to the RBI number they came to by the end of their career. Just stupid. Sandy Koufax didn't even have 30 RBI's in his career. HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A HALL OF FAMER?

So there are guys like him.

There are guys like Piazza. He has the 4th most RBI among catchers in MLB history. Two of those other catchers are in the Hall of Fame. He's 1st in HR among catchers, with the four guys below him all Hall of Famers. He's 6th in hits, with four Hall of Famers immediately below him. 1st all-time in slugging percentage and 2nd all-time in OPS. There are guys like him. They are guys who are in the Hall of Fame.

And I know, it's the catching position, and people want to give more credit because it's so hard to catch and play, but some of the defensive issues—not throwing out runners,

This is an incredibly vague statement, but Piazza had a 23% caught stealing percentage in his career. He is 94th all-time in runners caught stealing with 423. Sure, some of this is a product of teams running on him. Piazza was a historically great hitting catcher. That counts for more than being an average defensive catcher in the same way Ozzie Smith being a defensive wiz put him in the Hall of Fame even though he didn't put up Hall of Fame hitting numbers.

no Gold Gloves as a catcher, things like that—that bothered me. I thought he's a great hitter, he was a great hitter, batted over .300, but something told me he belongs in the Hall of Fame—or, Very Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

That something that told Rob Parker that Mike Piazza shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The voices in his head caused by insanity. I despise Piazza as a player, but anyone who thinks he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is crazy.

Rick Telander says the Hall of Fame cheats are paying the price for their actions. I'm just kidding. He says they are paying the price for Bud Selig's inaction. I'm not a huge Bud Selig fan, but to blame him for players choosing to use PED's seems a little bit like moving the blame to where it shouldn't necessarily completely lie.

Oh, how fun were those days of bulging biceps, Flintstones vitamins and home runs that flew off bats like ball bearings off anvils.

They were the result of a sport run amok on performance-enhancing drugs. And as history informs us, once the conspiracy has been uncovered, somebody’s gonna take the fall. And it’s almost never someone at the top. Find a mid-level, overzealous, loud-mouthed worker. Get a grunt.

And of course, Bud Selig has decided (UNFAIRLY, Rick Telander believes) to have those players who actually took steroids and helped the sport run amok with PED's take the blame. In reality, he should be blaming himself 100%. After all, Selig is the one who was in the locker room everyday interviewing Sammy Sosa and other PED users seeing their bodies changing, noticing the Andro hanging out on the shelf, with their finger on the pulse of the team. Wait, that wasn't Bud Selig who was in the locker room everyday, that was the sports media. They are, of course, in no way to blame for the Steroid Era because it's their job to report the news as it happens with gleeful joy and not question anything they are writing. Look, sportswriters are just along for the ride and it's not their job to question the bulging biceps or Flintstones vitamins. They are certainly no way at fault nor is Sammy Sosa. The blame lies solely not with those in daily contact with the players or the players themselves, but with Bud Selig.

If there were a red ‘‘C’’ — for cheater — that could be hung around Sammy’s neck for all to see, it seems certain the Baseball Writers’ Association of America would do it.

He and his brother-in-arms, McGwire, who was named on only 10 percent of the ballots and also is plummeting toward the vanishing point, are two of the poster boys for the Steroid Era, which has quieted down but never will be clearly completed.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that Bud Selig is blameless in all of this. But I always find it funny when the same sportswriters who stood around in awe, wrote pieces about the greatness of these Steroid Era players, and had daily contact with these players are now saying, "HEY! Why didn't someone blow the whistle and stop this shit?"

I think Murray Chass and his bacne theory about Mike Piazza is kind of crazy given Piazza crouched down in a hot uniform all summer, but at least he wanted to write a story about it and his editor would not allow him to do so. Others, like Rick Telander, enjoyed the ride day after day and now wanted someone to step in and do something. Certainly not him though.

Sosa is the guy who just went too far. He rubbed our noses in it, changing from a slender outfielder to a bulging beast before our eyes.

Before your eyes, huh? Interesting how some sportswriters didn't want to point the finger at some of these players during the Steroid Era, but after these players retire, these same sportswriters don't mind accusing players who haven't been proven to use steroids as having used.

Sosa was slain by the law, the government and innuendo while commissioner Bud Selig dozed. Because, yes, Sosa changed shape before Selig’s eyes, too. That Selig did nothing about the obvious muscle madness going on in his leagues for more than a decade is the main reason we have reached the point where statistics mean so little and qualified Hall of Fame players are shunned.

Selig should have been more aware. This was a systematic failure and not just the failure of one person. Blaming Selig for Sammy Sosa using steroids is trying to find a fall guy for the Steroid Era, in the same article where Rick Telander accuses Bud Selig of finding a fall guy for the Steroid Era.

But he built it at the expense of integrity. That he didn’t do anything about rampant steroid use in the majors is a pity, even though the strongman tent show brought Selig’s game back from near irrelevance after the ugly 1994 strike.

If Selig didn’t know men such as Sosa were juicing, then shame on him. 

Right. Shame on Bud Selig. He should have unilaterally started a drug testing policy and forced the union to go along with it. This shouldn't take more than a day or two, right? 

Books, magazine articles, rumors, the drug corruption of the Olympics, bodybuilding freaks everywhere — the evidence was mind-boggling.

The evidence was so mind-boggling that Bud Selig should have stepped in immediately and stopped the madness. Of course, it wasn't so mind-boggling at that point in time that Rick Telander actually broached the subject of just how obvious it was that Sosa was juicing. Phil Rogers was fawning over Sosa after he won the 1998 MVP award and Telander apparently forgot to mention how obvious it was that Sosa was using steroids when he voted for Sosa as the 1998 NL MVP and then said he did it because Sosa was nicer than Mark McGwire. 17 years later it was SO obvious that both players were cheating, it's just that Sosa was being so nice to Rick he forgot to bring it up at the time. He totally thought Sosa was cheating at the time though, I mean how could he not? The evidence was mind-boggling.

Maybe Rick's mind was so boggled by Sosa's politeness and the chase for the home run crown that he didn't feel it was right to bring up steroids as an issue. If so, he's as bad as Bud Selig.

But how convenient to reap the benefits, then let over-egoed simpletons take the rap.

Fall guys. We need them. We find them.

BUT YOU ARE USING BUD SELIG AS A FALL GUY FOR THE STEROID ERA RIGHT NOW!

Writing Tuesday in USA Today, baseball columnist Bob Nightengale said we voters — and I am one — should get over the Steroid Era and vote anybody in who deserves it.
We never will know for sure who was clean and who was dirty the last 30 years, Nightengale wrote, ‘‘so wake up and knock off this absurdity.’’

Not me. It’s not absurd to me. I’ll never vote for players I have judged to be cheaters.

Way to uphold a tough standard that you refused to do 17 years ago. It's good to see a real tough guy beat up on the players for cheating nearly two decades later when you didn't have the foresight and guts to say anything at the time. 

Uncle Bud and the players’ union did nothing to stop cheating for years, so I am forced to do what is unfair.

Yep, Uncle Bud, the players' union, and every sportswriter covering the Cubs, Cardinals and every other MLB team during the Steroid Era did nothing. That includes you, Rick. Get off your high horse.

15 comments Mike Celizic Thinks the Phillies Are Dumb For Buying Petey But I Think His Analysis Is Dumber

If you have to explain your jokes then the joke was never funny in the first place. So I am not going to explain my title, just say that I think "Dumb and Dumber" was the funniest movie of the 90's so I wanted to reference it. Yes, I realize I sound a little bit like Bill Simmons but it is the perfect comedy because it has Jim Carrey when he wasn't in his "I have to be overly outrageous in every scene I am in" mode, the surprising ability of Jeff Daniels to be funny, the Farrelly Brothers before they decided the best way to do comedy was through controversial jokes that felt slightly forced, it is insanely quoteable, and it had an actual plot that moved along with very few slow points.

It has every funny situation in one movie. Road trip movie? Yes. Outsiders trying to fit in? Yes. Stupid guy chasing a girl he will never have? Yes. Two idiots involved in a misunderstanding that lead to comedic consequences? Yes. That's all the Simmonizing I am going to do today. I would just like to think when asked how the Phillies were going to get Jamie Moyer out of the rotation, Ruben Amaro Jr. looked at his questioner with a mouthful of food and in a proud moment said, "Uh, I took care of it."

What's the opposite of someone having a good point? Whatever it is, that's what Mike Celizic has. He is comfortable talking about the Yankees and the Red Sox and that's about it. Even though he really sucks at it, he at least says some stupid things that can be defended by other people with their brains turned off. Then there are other times he is just critical to be critical (I don't know anyone else like that) and he loses his point or never even has a point. He doesn't like the Pedro signing for the Phillies. In fact he thinks it is a desperate signing...mostly because John Smoltz didn't work out for the Red Sox. So I guess everything does come back to the Red Sox or Yankees for Hat Guy in the end.

OPINION
By Mike Celizic

What it should be called:

IDIOCY
By Mike Celizic

The NL East should be wrapped up by now.

No, it should not be wrapped up by now. It is mid-August and simply because the Mets are struggling this year due to injuries, it doesn't mean there are no other good teams in the NL East.

And it would be except for the fact that the Phillies, like all Philadelphia sports teams, have a congenital need to make everything harder than it has to be.

False. The NL East is not wrapped up by now because the Braves and Marlins are 7-3 and 6-4 over their last 10 games, while the Phillies are 5-5 over their last 10 games. The teams are also 5 and 4.5 games out respectively, and this is with a massive Phillies win streak back in July. This race should actually be just as close as it is, if not closer.

The front office, too, is feeling the heat generated by a team that has everything a team needs to defend a championship except the most vital ingredient of all — pitching.

That is why they traded for Cliff Lee.

And so, after their deadline trade for Cliff Lee, the Phillies have rolled out their latest hope — some might call it more of a prayer — to solve their pitching problems.

I am on record as not being in mad love with Pedro Martinez at this stage of his career. I am also on record as saying he is a great fit for the Phillies because they can score runs and just need a guy to give them 5-6 innings and only give up 3 runs. The Phillies have enough offense to carry a pitcher.

Removing a guy who has a 5.00+ ERA from the rotation is a smart move and signing someone who can beat that ERA is nowhere near a prayer.

It is a gamble of the sort that rarely works.

What sort of gamble is this and when has it rarely worked? I still don't see how signing a guy for $1 million dollars to get 7 starts before the end of the season and replace the worst starter in the National League is a gamble.

There is really no precedent for this, unless you want to count Clemens signing with the Yankees mid-season.

The Red Sox, another team undergoing a late-season meltdown, ran a similar experiment with John Smoltz that blew up in their faces.

I don't see the similarity between these two situations. The Red Sox signed Smoltz way back in February or March and knew he wasn't going to pitch until June at the earliest. In retrospect it didn't work out too well, especially for the money they paid him, but they didn't sign Smoltz because they were having a late season meltdown and wanted to see if he could help stop it, they signed him before the season even started.

Hat Guy needs to get his facts and timeline straight. I have come to the conclusion most sports columnists can pretty much write whatever it is they want and no one will correct or question them. Accuracy be damned, that column is going out.

But when you have gaping holes in your starting rotation and a team ERA that’s among the worst in the league, these are the sorts of things you do. You grasp at straws — or aging pitchers — and hope for the best.

They signed Smoltz way before they had these rotation problems. In all honesty, the Red Sox rotation looked great going into the season and Smoltz was just a cherry on top.

See how quickly Celizic gets back on the topic of the Red Sox and Yankees?

When the Phillies get everything together, they look like the defending world champions. They last did that from July 3-28, when they went 19-3, including 10 straight wins and a streak of 14 out of 15. At the end of that streak, they had a seven-game lead in the division.

I am still wondering how Celizic expects the NL East division race to be over by now. The Phillies went on a streak of winning 14 out of 15 games when there was no other team in the division playing exceptionally well and still only had a 7 game lead at the end of that streak.

And so we end up with Pedro, determined to prove that last year’s 5-6 record and career-high 5.61 ERA with the Mets were a mirage and that he can still get people out in the big leagues.

He is no longer the Pedro that everyone has been in awe of in the past but he can still get batters out for 5-6 innings and that is all the Phillies need.

He pitched decently in his debut, allowing three runs in five innings and benefiting from a 12-run output from Philly's offense.

That is exactly what they need from Pedro. Granted, the Phillies aren't going to get 12 runs every game, but how is signing Pedro a desperate move if he gave them the exact thing that he was signed to give them?

He struck out 11 Class AA minor leaguers in his last rehab start and managed to crank his fastball up to 93 mph.

Of course he did. I sort of disparaged him a few days earlier for not being a great pitcher anymore. When I publicly knock a player, he will immediately start playing well. I am personally responsible (along with PED's) for Javy Lopez's 2003 season and his big contract with the Orioles. He owes me at least 1% of the contract amount. I was at a Braves game in 2003 and said the Braves may as well put a pile of shit on the plate and let it hit in place of Javy...and then he hit a home run while all the Braves fans around me looked at me like I was an idiot.

So it doesn't shock me Pedro pitched well after I said he was done...which he is done. His "done" is just better than another player's "done."

It’s asking a lot, but if you’re going to ask anybody to take on that job, Pedro’s your man.

Remember the premise of this column is that signing Pedro was a desperation move for the Phillies. Now you will find Celizic saying that Pedro can still be a good pitcher. He can't even stick to the premise of his own column.

Unlike Smoltz, a power pitcher who lost his power, Pedro is a thinking man’s pitcher.

No, no, no, no. This is blatantly incorrect. In nearly every single Smoltz start when doing their 25 minute analysis of John Smoltz and the Red Sox baseball game that was played that day, SportsCenter highlighted two things for nearly every single John Smoltz pitch they showed...the location and the pitch speed. The location was down the middle of the plate and the pitch speed was 93 MPH. Smoltz is 42 years old and he is a power pitcher but he did not lose his power, he lost his ability to control the location of his pitches. I don't even know how this guy has a column at this point. I just assume whatever he writes is going to be wrong, and generally I am right.

When he was young, he blew people away. As he got older, he learned to trick them into submission, serving up a baffling variety of pitches thrown on the edges of the zone at widely varying speeds. If you watch him long enough, you’ll be convinced that he could get people out if he had to lob the ball underhand.

Celizic has Amelia Bedelia'd his way through half of his column already and we still don't know why signing Pedro was a desperation move for the Phillies. So far the only conclusions I can draw is that Mike Celizic doesn't pay good enough attention to what is happening in a baseball because he doesn't understand why the Phillies signed Pedro. He also needs to stop talking about all the ways Pedro Martinez can get hitters out because he is completely undermining his column's premise.

That’s not true, of course, and his experience with the Mets last year is proof enough of that. And his minor-league starts show that he’s not going to go deep into games anymore.

I am repeating myself now. He doesn't have to go far into the games with the Phillies. His job is to give 5-6 innings and give up 3 runs and then hope the bullpen can hold the lead or the offense can win a close game. This is not a desperate strategy in hoping to get this from a 5th starter, this is a calculated risk. This option easily surpasses the other option which was to hope Jamie Moyer doesn't get hit too hard in the first couple of innings so the Phillies offense can come back and win the game.

And the Phillies are in such a dither that they were willing to banish their winningest pitcher, Jamie Moyer, to the bullpen to make room for him in the rotation.

Dammit! Wins are a horrible way of deciding whether a pitcher is any good or not. A freaking horrible way. I wish wins and saves would just go the hell away. They are misleading statistics designed to get players new, larger and better contracts. The mere fact a guy with a horrible ERA like Jamie Moyer has also has 10 wins should really get more people on board the "anti-win" train with me.

Despite his 10 wins, the 46-year-old junk-ball artist has a 5.47 ERA and gives up a frightening number of hits.

This sentence should read, "Despite the fact the 46-year-old junk-ball artist has a 5.47 ERA and gives up a frightening number of hits, he still has 10 wins. This is a testament to how potent the Phillies offense can be and shows why the Phillies believe having a guy like Pedro is good for the team."

What the Phillies are saying is that they believe that’s a bar that Pedro won’t have a great deal of trouble clearing.

This sentence should read: "He would be like a quarterback in the NFL whose job is to manage the game. He won't make huge mistakes to get the Phillies behind, but he is also capable enough to make make great pitches when he needs to. Mostly his job is to make sure the Phillies stay in the game."

That is a much better group of sentences. Considering Moyer was the worst starter in the National League, Pedro should not have to struggle to clear the 5.47 ERA bar.

And there’s the problem. Even if Pedro pitches well, he’s going to be gone after six and then it’s going to be in the hands of a shaky bullpen with a Styrofoam anchor — Lidge.

The fact the bullpen is shaky right now really has very little to do with the signing of Pedro Martinez. The bullpen is going to have to perform at some point during the season regardless of who is pitching for the Phillies.

This doesn't make the Pedro signing a massive risk or a desperation move because this is going to be a problem the Phillies have with Jamie Moyer on the mound as well. The Phillies signed Cliff Lee to be the ace of the staff, they don't need Martinez to be that guy anymore...mostly because they know he can't be.

Jamie Moyer last threw a complete game in 2007. He was averaging about 5 2/3 innings per start for 2009, 6 innings per start in 2008, and 6 innings per start in 2007. The odds are that if they had kept Jamie Moyer in the rotation he would also be gone after 6 innings, except he would have given up more runs than Pedro Martinez would. It would have been desperate to keep Moyer in the rotation.

There doesn’t seem to be a solution, unless it’s moving starter Brett Myers back to the bullpen, where he was last the closer in 2007, picking up 21 saves in 24 opportunities.

Celizic is confusing the issues here. The issue is whether signing Pedro Martinez was a desperation move for the Philadelphia Phillies, not whether the bullpen is any good for the Phillies. No matter who starts for the Phillies if the bullpen really stinks then the team is not going to succeed. Unless Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels plan on throwing 15 complete games before the end of the season.

If the bullpen stinks, then the bullpen stinks, but this should not be a reason to forgo improving the starting rotation. There aren't too many starters available that will be able to pitch 9 innings every start and take the shaky bullpen out of the equation.

Right now, it’s all about a team trying desperately not to fall into old Philadelphia habits and gag on what once looked like an insurmountable lead.

What the hell is he talking about? The Phillies have come back from behind the past two seasons to take the division from the New York Mets AND they won the World Series last year. Maybe other Philadelphia teams have choked in the past but the past couple of seasons the Phillies have not done so. Has Celizic even paid attention to baseball over the past couple of seasons?

Right now, it’s all about the newest savior on Broad Street, Pedro Martinez.

He's not a savior. He is a 5th starter and he is a better option than Jamie Moyer.

-I am sure everyone heard that Mike Vick signed with the Eagles.

This surprised me a little bit. My initial thought was, "crap the Panthers play the Eagles first game of the season. I bet they are going to have all kinds of tricks up their sleeve for the game." Then I realized Vick will be suspended for the first games of the season. I guess I still have bad memories of Vick when he played for the Falcons. If I never saw him play football again, it would be too soon.

My second thought was that I was completely right and Michael Smith was completely speculating on ESPN the other night when he said the Panthers would sign Vick and I am glad I don't have to shave words into my head.

Donovan McNabb also "signed off" on this acquisition and I can't help but think that is bullshit. McNabb has sort of been on the chopping block in Philly at times over the past couple of seasons. I just can't imagine he would want the guy who used to be the poster child for the NFL coming on the Eagles roster. If McNabb struggles aren't the fans going to clamor for Mike Vick to be playing? Especially if Vick comes out and plays well over his first couple of games and McNabb struggled a bit while Vick was suspended. I don't personally care if there is a quarterback controversy but since McNabb got all bent out of shape when the Eagles drafted Kevin Kolb, I just don't see how he would sign off on the Vick acquisition.

The Falcons tried so hard to draft good, young receivers early in the NFL Draft to put around Vick and the Eagles do have guys like DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin around Vick when he is activated. I found the parallel of Vick having high draft pick receivers to throw to in Atlanta and now in Philadelphia to be interesting. The Eagles have a lot of playermakers on that roster this year and they could be interesting to watch but there is only one football and I wonder how creative they are going to be to get the ball to everyone.

I thought the Eagles were an odd team to sign Vick...especially to a 2 year contract. The second year is an option, so I guess that makes some sense. I guess the Eagles wanted someone who could make an impact as a backup QB.

My favorite part about all of this is many analysts are going to try and predict how the Eagles are going to do this year based on this acquisition and will analyze how this affects the NFC East. How the hell do they know for sure? Vick hasn't played in two years, so any predictions on how this will affect the Eagles are not even educated guesses, but just pure guesses. Things are going to be interesting in Philadelphia this fall, I know that much.

27 comments Pedro: God Among Men

I know a lot of our readers are from outside of the New England boundaries, but Bens comments yesterday really struck a nerve with me. I honestly dont think anyone realizes how much Pedro meant to this region back when he came to the sox back in the day. At the time we were fresh off of letting our star pitcher (roger clemens) waltz up to toronto to be "close to home", and the entire region was just depressed and looking for something to look forward to for the next season. I mean, we had Nomah, but he alone could not carry a team anchored by Tim Wakefield.

I still remember where I was when the news was first announced. I was on the 6th hole of Hoodkroft CC, in Derry, NH, and I cant tell you the excitement that I felt when I heard we had traded for Pedro for just Carl Pavano and Tony Armas Jr. It was like a whole new breath of fandom had been breathed into me. Mind you, this was before the area even gave a shit about Shaughnessy's shitty book about curses. Pedro just....I dont know....he made the whole region happy that we had acquired him.

When Pedro first came here, the stadium was always packed--ALWAYS!--and there were dominican flags flying everywhere. I remember one of the first games I attended, against the blue jays, and Pedro sat Jose Canseco on his ass.....of course Canseco homered on the next fastball down the middle, but Pedro had the balls to do whatever the fuck he wanted to...he was that good, and cocky.

After deciding to "build" around Pedro, things started to die down around Fenway. You had Dante Bichette as your DH and Mike Lansing as your 2nd baseman. You could tell the owners at the time were just banking on the star power of Pedro and Manny. I promise you guys, the next time I go home I will grab the VHS's of games I went to with Pedro starting where I sat behind the plate (where I didnt belong, but there were no fans there) and post them up, just to show how bad the band wagoning has gotten.

We may have won in 04 and 07, but I still savor the moment where I got to watch Pedro, in his prime, moreso than I do the championships. Because I knew I was watching--Live!--A historically great picthing performance that can never be replicated again. I know we make fun of the red sox-yankees coverage on ESPN, but those years meant a lot to us Sox fans......thats why I'm not joking when I say that remembering Pedros performance almost---ALMOST!--brings tears to my eyes when I reflect on them. I will always--and to this day--thank my mother for working the extra jobs just to get me those red sox tickets. (Side story: I used to play golf, and the one time I needed a ride home from a meeting, she was at the 99 all star game. Its cool, I've forgiven her for that. I was only mad she didnt take me. Fuck! I would've skipped that godddamn golf meet!) (In all seriousness: that is a true story, but I still love my mom, I wasnt as bent out of shape as I kinda make it out to be. Especially after all the Rick Reilly stories I have read after the fact.)

To quote Forrest Gump: Thats all I have to say about that...

4 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Weekend Edition

I have probably 25 articles bookmarked that examine the crappiness of the writing present in the world and so I need to briefly get these out of my system.

1. Starting with Peter King's Tuesday Morning Quarterback is always a great start.

Seven teams look interesting to me:

Peter means pertaining to the draft, but it could just be 7 teams overall in the NFL look interesting to him and it would not shock anyone.

Carolina dealt its first-round pick on draft day last year to acquire tackle Jeff Otah, and it leaves the Panthers without a pick 'til the 59th overall selection. The Panthers have never been afraid to wheel and deal (GM Marty Hurney learned the business under Bobby Beathard, who loved trading), and they could be logical trade partners to move up -- maybe to get their quarterback of the future.

Absolutely, ignore the fact the Panthers have zero quarterbacks on the roster that were drafted (all acquired under John Fox), the fact they have under $3 million in cap room, don't have a first round draft pick, or the fact they have immediate needs at WR, OL, DL and CB...I am sure they are going to somehow be able to turn no first round pick and five picks overall into a quarterback of the future.

Of course if they trade Julius Peppers, they will then have a first round pick...but I would bet $100 they don't draft a quarterback in the first two rounds.

Because of the failure of the Jason Taylor deal, the Redskins pick once in the first 75 picks -- at 13. They don't pick again until 79.

Peter was against cutting Jason Taylor this year. If they had not cut Jason Taylor, they would have one pick in the first 75 picks and an extra several million less in salary cap room...basically they would be in the same position in the draft, just with Jason Taylor on the roster. I just wanted to point this out.

"It sounds to me like Jason Taylor doesn't have the commitment or the stomach to keep playing football, especially if he's willing to forfeit that hefty salary. Good luck to him on trying to get $8 million from another team.''

All of those points are good, Benny. And there is probably more blame on the side of Taylor than the team. But here's this: The Redskins are without the 44th pick in the draft, and they lost it over a player who had one impact game -- the two-sack performance against Philadelphia. Think of the borderline first-round picks that could be had in a top-heavy draft. It's a big blow to the 'Skins long-term.

Even if they had kept Jason Taylor, they still would not have this pick. Other than the fact they did not give Jason Taylor a second year in Washington before cutting him, what has changed? Everything Peter writes here is still true, they just don't have to pay him this year to be on the team.

The fact that a deal for Peppers didn't get done around the start of free-agency means teams think the price is too high for him. Who wants to pay a first-round pick (or more) plus $14 million a year for a guy whose legend always has been a little better than the reality?

I always have thought Peppers was a little overrated myself but......the Vikings traded a first round pick and two 3rd round picks for Jared Allen. Allen had 284 tackles and 57.5 sacks the first five years of his career and Peppers had 255 tackles and 53.5 (and one season of 2.5 and 14.5 the two years after that) the first five years of his career. I think Peppers is worth at least a first round pick if you compare the two players versus what the Chiefs got in compensation for Allen.

Acknowledging Peppers is 2 years older than Allen, I still think he would be worth a first round pick if you compare what the Chiefs got for Allen.

From David Davies of Conway, Ark.: "Why is it, Peter, that it makes perfect sense to you why a GM like A.J. Smith, widely considered to be a boorish dolt of man from all I have read, can be lauded for "not paying (Tomlinson) for production of two or three years ago," but a player like Anquan Boldin can be vilified for asking for more money when he has clearly outplayed his contract.

I said I didn't think Tomlinson should be compensated for anything other than what he is going to do in the future. As for Boldin, it doesn't make much sense for the Cards to pay two receivers a combined one-sixth of their entire salary cap. I have never understood writers and commentators who praise teams for cutting players who under-perform but question the character of players who request market value for out-performing their contracts.

Peter didn't really answer the question. The reader did not ask if the Cardinals should give Boldin a new contract, he asked why Boldin should not receive more money for outplaying his contract. The reader is asking why writers question the character of Boldin and showing how they treat him for asking for more money, but not asking Peter whether Boldin deserves the money.

I think Boldin should be dealt for a low first-round pick. It'd be a great trade for the Cards and whatever team lands him.

So Peppers is not worth a first round pick but Anquan Boldin is?

2. Robert Bell of the Greensboro News & Record asks the question everyone is not wondering...why does the ACC ignore their lesbian fans?

It's been 11 years since George, a devoted follower of women's basketball, came out. She hopes it's not as long before the ACC women's tournament does the same.

I am for equal rights for people who are homosexual, so I don't want anyone trying to make me Rush Limbaugh...but what does he want the ACC to do? Have a sign that says, "Welcome Lesbians, Enjoy the Basketball Game!"

There is no sign at the men's tournament that says, "Welcome Heterosexual White Men With Incomes Over $100,000."

None of the major athletics conferences -- including the ACC -- markets its women's basketball tournament directly toward lesbians, and only a handful of individual colleges have recognized their lesbian fans publicly.

I get what this article is saying...kind of, but what kind of marketing is appropriate in this situation since the tournament does not seem to directly market to any other group of people? That's what I don't get.

It is impossible to know how many of the roughly 70,000 fans expected to take in this week's ACC women's tournament are gay.

Not really, you could ask everyone as they walk in the door.

On Friday, 13,599 fans watched UNC's quarterfinal victory over Clemson. The crowd was a mix you'd never see at the more-exclusive ACC men's tournament: children from area schools, dads with their teenaged daughters, entire families, retired couples.

And lesbians. Alone, in couples and in large groups of friends.

They are not alone if they are in couples and in large groups of friends. If you count couples and large groups of friends as "alone," then we are all pretty much alone.

As successful as the women's tournament has been in terms of attendance, Griffin and others believe it would do even better if officials would target lesbians in their marketing.

I would love to see the officials do this as well, simply to see how they would target lesbians for the tournament. I feel like I have never been marketed to, I like basketball, so I try to go to the tournament. It seems simple to me. Maybe there are lesbians that are unaware of the women's ACC tournament, that would explain how marketing to them would help.

3. This is one more reason I love conference tournaments. I like it when a very good ranked team loses the tournament to a team that needs to win the tournament to make the NCAA Tournament. This time it is Cleveland State beating Butler. At least Gary Parrish did not write, "Butler did it, in the Horizon, with a basketball," that would have been cheesy. Kudos to him for refraining.

This is what makes the conference tournaments so great in my opinion. All of a sudden the Horizon League is getting two bids and the power conference teams that are hoping to "win a game or two" to get in the tournament have to do the same thing Cleveland State did, win their tournament or at least advance to the championship game.

Some people hate automatic bids but if Cleveland State can beat Butler, why can't Maryland beat a team they have played once or twice to win the ACC Tournament? Then you have some idiots who want to have 128 games in the NCAA Tournament, which is too large of a tournament in my opinion. The NCAA Tournament is great because it is brief and exciting, we don't need it to turn into the 2 month long NHL and NBA Playoffs.

4. Rick Reilly gets paid millions of dollars to write articles like this.

A few seconds left. The game teeters on these two free throws. The shooter gulps. The packed gym goes silent, save for the tapping of a white cane on the back of the rim. That's right. The shooter's brother is under the hoop, rapping a cane on the rim. That's because the shooter, Matt Steven, is blind.

I bet you thought I was going to make fun of an article Reilly wrote about a blind kid. Nope, it was right in Reilly's wheel house. He is still overpaid, but this was a great story. Still Reilly could not quite stop being a little condescending and making a borderline offensive comment at the end while trying to be cheesy.

Since then, Matt's life has gone all kinds of crazy, unthinkably wonderful. His teammates call him Shooter. A girl says she heard all about him.

See, he is blind, so girls aren't attracted to him and ignore him, so one girl hearing about him is crazy and unthinkably wonderful. Reilly wants you to know because he is blind, he should be an outcast, but he is not because he shot those two crucial foul shots.

He's even thinking about asking somebody to prom.

Blind people can't normally go to the prom. Usually they have to stay chained up in the basement when it comes time for prom...but Matt did hit those foul shots, so he is allowed to go to prom.

I hope she says yes. Best blind date of her life.

See...it is a blind date because Matt is BLIND! Get it?

In trying to be cheesy Rick Reilly manages to make a pun and also sort of make fun of the fact Matt is blind.

(Reilly writing a story about a deaf baseball player named Jerry) "He now has a girlfriend and is thinking about asking her to marry him and he wants to pay help pay for the wedding. His future in-laws offered to pay for it all, but he wouldn't hear of it. See, he can't hear them because he is deaf!"

(Reilly sits back and wonders if his $200,000 check from ESPN has cashed or not)

5. Bill Plaschke, in the first leg of his trifecta of crap articles he wrote this week, checks in with Andruw Jones.

I'm standing in a spacious Texas Rangers clubhouse, on a gorgeous spring morning, speaking to a trim and talkative Andruw Jones.

I don't believe it. There has not been such a thing as a "trim" Andruw Jones since about 2001.

"Are you saying you're sorry?"

Plaschke, in flashes of journalistic brilliance asks this question probably 5 times in this article. What the hell "sorry" will do I will never know, but Bill really, really wants to hear it.

A couple of hours later Monday, upstairs in a spartan suite, moments after Jones hit his home run, I convey this apology to Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti.

I can see Bill Plaschke running up the stairs and telling Colletti in his semi-lisp that Andruw Jones is sorry and Colletti responding by asking, "who?" and then getting back on the phone with Pedro Martinez's agent.

"Last season was the worst year of my life, by far," he says. "I got off on everybody's bad side. I couldn't turn it around. It really hurt."

Oh poor you. I am sure the Dodgers, who overpaid you by millions last year, did not have such a great year as well.

There are several theories about Jones' downfall.

It doesn't matter what they are. Here are my two and only plausable theories. Andruw Jones was overweight and has been for nearly half a decade now and he has never made any adjustments in his swing to how pitchers have pitched him. It's actually really simple. He turned into a fat guy who can't hit the ball.

So he moves on, but not so fast, as Dodgers fans at the Rangers' spring home Monday surrounded him with, yes, more boos.

Nothing says a slow news day like following around a player the team you cover released a few months ago and repeatedly asking him to apologize.

Apology accepted.

6. In Plaschke's second turd trifecta he does a puff piece on Mike Scioscia and it is just grand...meaning very puffy.

The spring-training office of the most secure leader in professional sports looks like the bedroom of a 12-year-old boy.

So this is either the desk of Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, Bill Belichick, Bobby Cox, Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa, Terry Francona, Jim Leyland, or Mike Tomlin.

"Heck, I don't know what my philosophy is, I don't know what my style is," says Mike Scioscia, spraying on sunscreen, applying lip balm, heading out to play on a bright Tuesday morning. "It's all just baseball."

I am sure this speech really won over Artie Moreno when Scioscia applied for the Angels' position as manager.

Who could have dreamed that the common combination would eventually turn the quiet little Anaheim team into its own magic kingdom?

Please stop. I just ate.

Under Scioscia, they have made five playoff appearances in the last seven seasons, the same amount the Dodgers have made in the last 20 years.

They also happen to play in the same division...wait no they don't...same league...again, no. What a great horrible comparison.

Then, of course, there's that World Series championship in 2002, a moment that could have been repeated a couple of times since if not for the Boston Red Sox.

Assuming the Angels would have not lost to a different team in the ALCS, even if they had not lost the ALDS to Boston three times. This is a fairly large assumption. You know what they say about assuming though...when Bill Plaschke assumes, he is an ass, no matter what.

Then he was rewarded by owner Arte Moreno with a contract extension that could take him through 2018, essentially making him an Angel for the rest of his professional life.

Assuming he retires at the age of 60, which if he is a successful manager doesn't seem too likely.

"Nothing around here has changed, not one thing," he says. "We just go about our business, we just play baseball."

Brilliant. While other teams are playing checkers, the Angels play baseball.

Scioscia was widely criticized for ordering a suicide squeeze bunt in the ninth inning of a must-win game in Boston, the play's failure leading directly to the Angels' defeat and elimination.

But the call was typical Scioscia, exactly what has made him successful.

What is successful being defined as? The failure of a play called by the manager that led directly to his team's defeat and elimination doesn't seem like a success to me. But hey, if this is typical Scioscia then Anaheim fans have plenty of time to prepare for disappointment. Hang in there, Angels fans.

Squeeze or not, he's still a good fit.

Do they teach how to write puff pieces in Journalism School? They must because every one of these ends in a bad pun.

7. Now for the final of the Plaschke crap trifecta. He thinks the Dodgers should bring back Pedro Martinez. Not a bad idea overall, but let's see why.

They could sign the three-time Cy Young Award winner, a 37-year-old free agent, and make amends for trading the right-hander in a ridiculous 1993 deal.

We have a winner for "worst reason to sign Pedro Martinez or any free agent ever." I don't think you should resign a player for making up for trading that player 15 years ago. It seems kind of short sighted to me.

Martinez is available; he's a 37-year-old free agent coming off three injury-plagued seasons with the New York Mets.

Injury plagued? He will be a perfect fit on the disabled list with Jason Schmidt. Where can the Dodgers sign?

Did you see him pitch for the Dominican Republic in the World Baseball Classic? In a span of four days, he pitched twice: six innings, zero runs, one hit, six strikeouts.

He did look good...against the Netherlands.

Yes, both times he was facing a group of bat-wielding speedskaters from the Netherlands. But he still threw 75 pitches in four days, 58 strikes, and dominated a team that beat the Dominicans twice.

Sure he pitched against some little leaguers, but they were state champion little leaguers.

So why not sign a guy who has already made the adjustment? It is clear that Martinez has figured out a way to pitch with a rebuilt arm, and questions about his endurance have been answered with his frequent WBC work.

Those six innings over a four day span really cleared up his questions about durability and whether Pedro is worth the money he may want. If the Dodgers are looking for 6 guaranteed innings every 4 days, Pedro is their man.

Signing Pedro is not a bad idea, but these are horrible reasons why.

8. Bill Simmons has a halfway decent (i.e. not easy to make fun of) column up today. For fear of inciting the rage of SimmonsClones, I will talk about it.

You probably don't care. Wait, you definitely don't care.

This sums up accurately how I feel about 80% of Bill's columns. Yet I still read them.

You see 15-20 horrendous calls or no-calls in NBA games these days. Minimum. It's unclear whether the league cares.

Watch college basketball. It is worse. Referees in college basketball have no idea how to correctly call dual possession or a charge call. No clue.

Maybe we should make it like a driver's license -- if you dip under 35 percent through 250 career attempts, you're suspended from shooting 3s for a year?

I know Bill is just entertaining me here and is absolutely not a journalist, but I want to look at how this number would work out.

This would mean 96 players would be able to shoot 3's next year. I will let you decide if this is a great idea...or entertainment suggestion. Whatever you want to call what Bill does.

I have been attending games since I was 5, and I have NEVER seen a more bummed-out player enter an NBA game than Marcus Camby. Ever.

Either this is hyperbole or Bill constantly witnesses history.

"The look on Dunleavy's face after Randolph jacked up that awful 3 at the end of the game was priceless. It sort of looked like the same reaction that Ryan from the 'Real World' had when he found out that Katelynn is a tranny.

"The final inbounds play that Dunleavy drew up had three Clippers run around like chickens with their heads cut off, then Zach Randolph throwing up a 32-footer with a hand in his face. Priceless. Can I please get a 'Your 2008-2009 Los Angeles Clippers?'"

I can see two SimmonsClones wrote those last two paragraphs. It must be nice to be idolized by men between the ages of 18-25. Overall, not a lot to make fun in this week's column by Bill.

9. I know no one cares what I think about the Jay Cutler situation. I will tell you anyway.

Josh McDaniels is an absolute dumbass for letting any trade scenario with Jay Cutler involved public information. If he thought it would not stay under wraps he should have never had the talks initiated and if he was going to start the talks then he should have approached Jay Cutler and told him what was going on.

The Broncos did, though, tell Cutler that every player on the team could be traded and he could be traded at any time.

For a team like the Broncos that need some new talent, this is a really smart policy.

Jay Cutler needs to quit whining and just be a man about this. I realize his feelings are hurt and I agree Denver should have told him before hand they would be trying to trade him or that his name had even come up in trade talks. Get over it though. If you don't think you can trust McDaniels anymore then tough shit, sounds to me like he needs to be traded, so I have no idea what he is bitching about. As much in the wrong as Josh McDaniels was for the way this whole thing went down, Jay Cutler is being a baby. It makes no logical sense to complain about a team trying to trade you by refusing to play for the team...then they will trade you.

10. Jay Mariotti thinks no one in the United States cares about the World Baseball Classic. I think he is semi-correct that few people care right now, even though I personally am watching the games.

Baseball picked one of the worst possible times to hold the WBC. It is being held right when college basketball is getting exciting and Spring Training is beginning. Serious sports fans are not going to pay attention to the WBC when the NCAA Tournament is about to start and when their favorite teams are getting ready to start the new baseball season. If they schedule it for early February or maybe December when college football is winding down, I think it would be a different story.

8 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Tuesday Edition

I am not planning on doing my "Ten Things I Think..." on every Tuesday but today feels like a great day to do it again and I honestly enjoy doing it. My brain is very scattered and I have a lot to say about a lot of things and this lets me do it. So if you hate it, I am sorry.

1. Woody Paige is being tongue in cheek. Maybe. I thought that originally and then I read the entire article and found it did not seem like he really was. Woody seems to think the Broncos should be lauded for currently winning their division by three games. They are 7-5 and are the AFC West version of the Arizona Cardinals. They are in a weak division and they have an above average team. Congratulations should not be in order for this.

What do the New York Giants (11-1), the Tennessee Titans (11-1), the Arizona Cardinals (7-5) and the Denver Broncos (7-5) have in common?

They are the four most dominant division leaders in the NFL.

I had a friend in graduate school who described the girls at my graduate school in this way, and no I am not trying to be Bill Simmons, this actually has a point.

"These girls are at best a bunch of 5's and 6's walking around the campus like they are 10's. What happens anytime we go out? They immediately become the 5's and 6's who have to go up against the 10's and they get pissy and leave the bar to go home and watch Sex and the City re- runs on TBS." Not very insightful at all but the Broncos are a team that is a six on a scale of 1 to 10. There is really no reason to call them dominant.

Win out and they'll be 11-5, my preseason prediction. Lose out, and they will be below .500. If the Broncos win two, the Chargers (4-8) definitely will be shut out of the playoffs. Win one, and that game in San Diego will be significant. The division-common opponents-conference records tiebreakers would basically be even (based on results until now). Winner take all.

When your closest division rival is 4-8 and you are actually worried they may catch you, your team does not deserve to make the playoffs. I know these are the rules but if I were Woody Paige I would be embarrassed to write about this scenario.

Speaking of Woody Paige and bad journalism, if you go along the right side of his archive and see how many times he has dumped on the Broncos or said Mike Shanahan should be fired, you have to wonder how he can just jump right on the bandwagon like he seems to be doing in this column. Journalists are supposed to be neutral observers who reports what they see and use what little insight they may have to inform the reader, but it is disconcerting to read how Woody seems to think the Broncos go from a good team to a bad team from week to week.

2. I was watching part of Monday Night Football last night and when they were previewing next week's Tampa Bay v. Carolina game, Mike Tirico mentioned both teams have a 9-3 record and said, "I guess that is what you get when you draw the AFC West," and then Tony Kornheiser laughed. This is bad journalism and shows how little research these assholes really do.

Based on the season ending today, Tampa Bay has played or will play 6 games against playoff teams, which does not include a game against Dallas who could make the playoffs easily.

Carolina has played or will play 8 games against playoff teams.

I am not saying these are bad ass tough schedules or anything of the like but Carolina and Tampa Bay are in a division where the third place team has an 8-4 record in Atlanta. Just like the case of the Broncos, a team's record is pretty much what decides whether that team gets in the playoffs or not, regardless of who these teams have played. The AFC West stinks, I would agree with that, but I would hate to have a team in the NFC South division right now that is my favorite because it is very competitive no matter who they play out of the division.

3. Bob Klapisch doesn't seem to think the Mets have gotten their money's worth with Pedro.

Now, 32 wins and no world championships later, it's fair to ask: Was Pedro really worth the money? Not if the Mets are honest with themselves. Despite the projected success, Martinez broke down just as the Red Sox predicted after 2005 and was unable to deliver a single pennant, let alone a Series ring.

If anyone remembers correctly the Red Sox made Pedro a three year deal worth about $38 million and the general consensus was that a four year deal was one year too much for Pedro. If Pedro can't perform well in a contract year, he is never going to perform well. That's just a note to other teams in the MLB.

The Red Sox worried about his durability -- his shoulder, in particular -- hesitating just long enough to allow the Mets the chance to both overpay and over-commit.

The Mets actually knew they were overpaying and overcommitting to Pedro, so I am not sure how they could have expected to get the value out of Pedro they paid for.

Plucking away Martinez was an enormous public-relations coup, but today the Mets' hierarchy admits Pedro fell short of their expectations. "We thought we'd get three [good] years from him," one senior official said. "Turns out we got 2½."

What I don't get is why the Mets did not sign him to a three year deal for a larger yearly amount and try to forgo a fourth year on the contract? They clearly expected him to pitch well for three years so offer him the contract for that length, if he accepts great, if he does not accept then they could have signed Derek Lowe, who actually outperformed Pedro over the four year span.

This is why the Mets are constantly in second place in the NL East, they try to get public relations coups rather than signing players who are actually going to help the team.

If Martinez hadn't given the Mets instant credibility by taking his career to Shea, Beltran -- and later Billy Wagner and Johan Santana -- would never have ended up as Mets.

Maybe this is true but I find it hard to believe these players would have turned down going to the Mets because Pedro Martinez is not there. It's not like Santana, Beltran and Wagner were only looking to play for the same team as Pedro Martinez.

Indeed, no one got close to the seven-year, $119 million deal the Mets dropped in front of Beltran. But even after he was entering the final round of negotiations, Beltran still wasn't sold; agent Scott Boras secretly told the Yankees the center fielder would accept less money if the Bombers would make an offer.

So apparently the last sentence of this column was a complete lie. What kind of writing is this? Bob writes one sentence and then contradicts it with the next sentence. It's like he has multiple personalities.

You couldn't blame the Wilpons for revisiting Pedro's $53 million contract and asking themselves: Where did the money go?

Considering the Mets admit they overpaid and overcommitted to Pedro, they got exactly what they bargained for when they signed him. Why would you write questions and then answer them or contradict them? That's not writing a column, that is insanity.

4. Jemele Hill talks about charm school for athletes. Usually when Jemele writes the nation mourns the loss of intelligent and cohesive writing. This week the nation falls asleep due to boredom.

And so on. Goolsby and chef Robert Hewitt put them through a dining exercise. They practiced table manners through a three-course meal. They learned the different forks, which wines go with which foods and that if they're having a bad experience at a restaurant, they should talk to the manager privately instead of causing a disturbance.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz..............................................

When the five hours were up, the rookies couldn't say they hadn't received a complete education. They practiced writing thank-you notes to Lions owner William Clay Ford. They practiced making proper introductions and shaking hands: Lock the V of your hand with the other person's. Wrap the hand and thumb. Squeeze. Pump.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

You might be thinking the winless Lions should have been studying film instead of salad forks, coverages instead of personal stationary. But consider the bigger picture. Today's professional athlete is under a lot of pressure to perform because he's representing billion-dollar corporations 24 hours a day.

Fantastic point Jemele! Next year instead of being the poorly behaved athletes who exhibit poor performance on the field and a lack of skills they currently are, they will be well behaved ex-athletes who work at Foot Locker.

I understand the premise but many of these rookies are not going to be on a roster in a few years and the only billion dollar corporation Gosder Cherilus is going to be representing in the future is Wal-Mart when he begins his job as a greeter at the age of 34 when he has blown through his millions. Gosder Cherilus sucks and the Lions do too.

I am surprised dumbass Jemele Hill did not call the article "Such Well Behaved Lions."

5. David Schoenfield, whose picture looks like he should get his ass kicked immediately and his Dunk-a-roos stolen at lunch, grades Scott Boras' free agent clients of the past.

He gave grades on a scale of 1-5 Scott Boras heads. How fucking creative! Now give me your lunch.

He gives Kevin Brown's deal two Boras heads and A Rod's deal two Boras heads. Really I have nothing else to add, other than the fact he thinks the Dodgers and the Yankees have gotten the same return on their free agent contracts with Kevin Brown and Alex Rodriguez.

The final tally: Umm, yeah … maybe a little pitching would have been nice. The Rangers have had one winning season in the eight years since the original signing and were so desperate to trade him they actually paid a portion of his Yankees salary. Despite A-Rod's productivity, the size of the deal proved disastrous.

You can't knock A Rod's Boras heads down because of the lack of pitching for the Rangers. Sure they could have used some pitching instead of hitting, but Alex Rodriguez was voted once as MVP with the Rangers and once as MVP with the Yankees. He got paid like the best player in the league and he played like it.

The fact neither team had any good pitching was not A Rod's fault. He also probably accounted for tons of money in merchandising and ticket sales. Why is everyone so down on A Rod?

He gave Andruw Jones' 2001 signing with the Braves three Boras heads despite the fact Scott Boras had nothing to do with the negotiation and the Braves were able to secure one of the best hitting and fielding centerfielders in MLB at below market price. Then he gives the signing of Beltran for $17 million per year three Boras heads. I think if you looked it up, which I did not, Jones probably performed at the same level as Beltran over the length of the contract...and clearly Jones was a better centerfielder.

I realize these are all objective but I love arguing with stupid measurements like this. They mean nothing, yet somehow some editor greenlights an article about it.

6. I have no real problem with the BCS mess. I know everyone likes a nice happy ending with no loose ends and one true champion but it's not going to happen with the current system. Everyone needs to just accept this.

I don't know what it says about the games that are played during the year when Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field and yet Oklahoma is still seen as a better team by the BCS computers and the voters. I have heard people say that game was earlier in the year and Oklahoma has proven themselves to be a better team than when these teams played originally. Maybe, but if you can discount early season losses then what about Florida or USC? They lost early in the year and now are clearly better teams than they were then. Why don't they get a shot at the national championship? It seems the current system does dilute the outcome of early season games.

I don't think a playoff is ever going to happen and I really don't know how it could be implemented correctly either. There is just too much money in the BCS and it will always create interest in college football, regardless of negative or positive press, college football always gets coverage.

My biggest beefs are the one month wait for the championship games and the fact all one loss teams that lost early in the year are not considered for the National Championship based on the principle Oklahoma leapfrogged Texas.

7. For fear of agreeing with Gregg Doyel, this would help decide which team is better.

The problem isn't the BCS system that would rate the Sooners ahead of the Longhorns, even by a margin as slim as 45-35 the .0128 that separates them in the BCS rankings.

Tell me, please, what Missouri has done to earn its place in the Big 12 Championship Game. Won the Big 12 North?

I do have to agree another game between the teams with the best BCS rankings, despite division separation, would help decide whether Oklahoma or Texas deserved to be in the National Championship game. They are the two best teams in the Big 12 and another game would give one team two losses and make the decision easier as to who the best team is.

A "conference championship game" that doesn't pit the best two teams in the conference. Brilliant innovation.

I have to agree. Missouri is very weak, though if they beat Oklahoma, that will decide Texas was the better team definitely...and Texas did beat Texas Tech, so they would deserve it.

I have a headache.

8. Michael Phelps is Sportsman of the Year. I don't care what anyone says, I still think he looks like a douchebag. I laugh a little bit at the thought of him pumping himself up to the tunes of Eminem and Lil' Wayne...simply because he looks like the goofiest, whitest guy in the world. I look at him and think, now THIS is a guy who will hit on your girlfriend at a bar and then try to start a fight with you, but only long enough for his security to pull him away.

9. This is the funniest thing I have read on Foxsports.com in a while. I can not look at Chris Fowler in the same way again. We all know Jason Whitlock has a bone to pick with ESPN but this is an absolute classic.

10. Today's UNC Tar Heels fan note of the day: Same guy as last week came in my office yesterday and asked if I had seen UNC defeat UNC-Asheville, and said I did not. He described it in great detail to me, which I did not appreciate, and was bragging that UNC had their scrubs in the game at the beginning of the second half. Here's the conversation from there:

(Me) "They are #1 in the country, so they should therefore beat every single team in the country. You should expect this type of performance."

(Man I work with) "I don't think they are #1 in the country really, I don't know how they came about."

(Me) "A team of experts, coaches and sportswriters all agree UNC is the best team in the country. Don't lower expectations for your team pretending they are just some 'little team that could' when you have 7 players that could play in the NBA on the roster."

(Man I work with) "I don't know about that." ---then he left the room and this is why I have no friends.

You can't come bragging about how great your team is and then try to backtrack and lower expectations immediately after that. UNC should not lose a game this year, they are that good.